N/P reducing pellets (solid vodka dosing)

[grevedin]

Has anyone thought about the consequences of a power outage? Power goes off, the water in the reactor stands still, a huge amount of sulphur is produced, and when the power comes back on the tank receives a sulphur bomb with potentially disastrous consequences.

 

[bluereefs]

Has anyone thought about the consequences of a power outage? Power goes off, the water in the reactor stands still, a huge amount of sulphur is produced, and when the power comes back on the tank receives a sulphur bomb with potentially disastrous consequences.

Shorter power outage should not cause trouble, more then 24 hours are needed for sulphur to be produced, IIRC I smelled the sulphure in my reactor when he was off after 2 days.

 

[cherubfish pair]

Has anybody been able to stop using their chaeto/macro algae filter because of excess nutrient production reduction from the use of N/P pellets? Would it be possible to remove an algae filter because of the efficiency of the N/P pellets?

Can someone post a video of a BRS pellet reactor in use? BRS doesn't have a video of their pellet reactor yet.

 

[Toadally]

Has anybody been able to stop using their chaeto/macro algae filter because of excess nutrient production reduction from the use of N/P pellets? Would it be possible to remove an algae filter because of the efficiency of the N/P pellets?

Can someone post a video of a BRS pellet reactor in use? BRS doesn't have a video of their pellet reactor yet.

I don't think BRS has a pellete reactor.

 

[pecan2phat]

Is it suggested that the foam should be removed from the reactor to prevent clogging when running the bio beads and if so, what type of mesh can be used to keep the bio beads from exiting the reactor?

Also this might be a dumb question, but should I shut down my sulfur denitrator before I start up the bio beads?

Thanks

 

[Yogre]

Is it suggested that the foam should be removed from the reactor to prevent clogging when running the bio beads and if so, what type of mesh can be used to keep the bio beads from exiting the reactor?

Also this might be a dumb question, but should I shut down my sulfur denitrator before I start up the bio beads?

Thanks

This is the stuff people have been using to replace their sponges, works really well:

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17447384&postcount=54

You can get it at craft stores (like Michael's); ask for "plastic canvas".

 

[sirreal63]

I used some leftover Enkamat rolled up, it worked great.

 

[pecan2phat]

Thanks for the info on the mesh.

Any opinions as to stopping the sulfur denitrator or should I leave it online?

No ozone or UV during the startup phase but can this eventually be turned back on if running bio beads?

 

[DJREEF]

Thanks for the info on the mesh.

Any opinions as to stopping the sulfur denitrator or should I leave it online?

No ozone or UV during the startup phase but can this eventually be turned back on if running bio beads?

I'd run them concurrent for awhile until the new reactor gets going. Hard transitions rarely ever go off without a hitch.

DJ

 

[jlinzmaier]

No ozone or UV during the startup phase but can this eventually be turned back on if running bio beads?

I see know reason why you can't run ozone or UV. As long as the ozone effluent isn't exiting near the BP reactor intake it will be just fine. I think ozone use is actually very beneficial and will help combat lowering o2 levels as bacterial populations increase.

I think any thoughts that ozone and UV use will significantly inhibit bacterial growth on the BP's is poor speculation. The amount of bacteria in the water column will be more than enough to seed the BP's (even when running ozone or UV or both). Once the BP's are established with a bacterial population I don't forsee any trouble unless the ozone reactor effluent is going right into the BP reactor intake. In which case, any residual ozone can kill the bacteria.

Jeremy

 

[DJREEF]

I see know reason why you can't run ozone or UV. As long as the ozone effluent isn't exiting near the BP reactor intake it will be just fine. I think ozone use is actually very beneficial and will help combat lowering o2 levels as bacterial populations increase.

I think any thoughts that ozone and UV use will significantly inhibit bacterial growth on the BP's is poor speculation. The amount of bacteria in the water column will be more than enough to seed the BP's (even when running ozone or UV or both). Once the BP's are established with a bacterial population I don't forsee any trouble unless the ozone reactor effluent is going right into the BP reactor intake. In which case, any residual ozone can kill the bacteria.

Jeremy

Killing the bacteria would diminish their contribution as an additional food source for some organisms, though. If this isn't important then torching them could help alleviate any blooms that might take place, esp in the beginning.

DJ

 

[Stuart60611]

Killing the bacteria would diminish their contribution as an additional food source for some organisms, though. If this isn't important then torching them could help alleviate any blooms that might take place, esp in the beginning.

DJ

Also, killing the bacteria will limit their effectiveness as a means to export nutrients. You want the bacteria to live, multiply, and consume nitrate and phosphate and then get skimmed out of your system. Killing them prematurely will limit this process, and upon death, the bacteria will release back into the system whatever nitrate and phosphate that the bacteria may have consumed, thereby greatly diminishing their utility for nutrient export.

 

[jlinzmaier]

Also, killing the bacteria will limit their effectiveness as a means to export nutrients. You want the bacteria to live, multiply, and consume nitrate and phosphate and then get skimmed out of your system. Killing them prematurely will limit this process, and upon death, the bacteria will release back into the system whatever nitrate and phosphate that the bacteria may have consumed, thereby greatly diminishing their utility for nutrient export.

It's my understanding that the use of the biopellets as opposed to carbon source dosing to the entire system, is that the bacterial proliferation can be at a specific location and there will be limited affect on bacterial growth throughout the rest of the system (particularly the corals sybiotic bacteria).

It sounds as if the manufacturers intent with the use of the BP's is to direct the effluent from the reactor towards the skimmer intake so the bacteria can be immediately skimmed out. This negates your indication of significant proliferation of bacteria throughout the entire system. It's my understanding that that's not the intention with the use of the BP's. The carbon source will not be a limiting nutrient with the use of BP's (if enough are used), therefore the bacterial proliferation on the surface of the BP's can continue to increase in that location as opposed to anywhere else in the tank (at least ideally). The use of ozone and it's conicidental killing of bacteria in the water column is moot point since the idea of using the BP's is to create the bacterial proliferation inside the BP reactor then skim them out as soon as they leave the reactor.

Jeremy

 

[Stuart60611]

I'm not following you. The thought with biopellets as opposed to carbon source dosing to the entire system, is that the bacterial proliferation can be at a specific location and there will be limited affect on bacterial growth throughout the rest of the system (particularly the corals sybiotic bacteria).

It sounds as if the manufacturers intent with the use of the BP's is to direct the effluent from the reactor towards the skimmer intake so the bacteria can be immediately skimmed out. This negates your indication of significant proliferation of bacteria throughout the entire system. It's my understanding that that's not the intention with the use of the BP's. The carbon source will not be a limiting nutrient with the use of BP's (if enough are used), therefore the bacterial proliferation on the surface of the BP's can continue to increase in that location as opposed to anywhere else in the tank (at least ideally). The use of ozone and it's conicidental killing of bacteria in the water column is moot point since the idea of using the BP's is to create the bacterial proliferation inside the BP reactor then skim them out as soon as they leave the reactor.

Jeremy

You make a good point. However, it is my understanding that although much of the bacterial growth does occur on the pellets, quite a bit of bacterial mass sluffs off the pellets which is how export occurs because the sluffed off bacteria is then skimmed out. Likewise, even when directing the pellet reactor effluent near or about the skimmer intake, the skimmer, at least on its first pass, does not uptake quite a bit of the bacterial mass which is sluffed off. The bacterial mass which is sluffed off the pellets and not uptaked by the skimmer goes into the water column and then can be killed by UV or ozone as I describe. I agree that the bacterial die off from the use of ozone and UV may not be as severe as it would be with more traditional liquid carbon sources, like vodka or vinegar, but nonetheless is meaningful.

 

[jlinzmaier]

Killing the bacteria would diminish their contribution as an additional food source for some organisms, though. If this isn't important then torching them could help alleviate any blooms that might take place, esp in the beginning.

DJ

If the BP reactor effluent is past the ozone reactor intake then the ozone would have little effect on the bacterioplankton entering the display until it circled the loop (tank to sump) a few times and eventually gets into the ozone reactor. The o3 molecule is so unstable it only remains as o3 for a very short time and would be unlikely to cause any significant bacterial death inside the display unless you were directing the outlet into the display and not implementing an o3 diffusing zone with GAC. If o3 went into the display in any significant amount it would cause substantial harm to the fish and other animals and at that point the bacterial death would be of little concern.

Jeremy

 

[jlinzmaier]

You make a good point. However, it is my understanding that although much of the bacterial growth does occur on the pellets, quite a bit of bacterial mass sluffs off the pellets which is how export occurs because the sluffed off bacteria is then skimmed out. Likewise, even when directing the pellet reactor effluent near or about the skimmer intake, the skimmer, at least on its first pass, does not uptake quite a bit of the bacterial mass which is sluffed off. The bacterial mass which is sluffed off the pellets and not uptaked by the skimmer goes into the water column and then can be killed by UV or ozone as I describe. I agree that the bacterial die off from the use of ozone and UV may not be as severe as it would be with more traditional liquid carbon sources, like vodka or vinegar, but nonetheless is meaningful.

Tough to know how much bacterial mass would actually enter the skimmer and effectively get skimmed out (as opposed to just passing through) and how much of an impact ozone injection would have on the overall bacterial poplulation in the water column (I'm confindent in assuming that any respectable amount of ozone injection can help prevent a massive overpopulation in the water column like a bloom). It's also not known if the bacteria are more easily skimmed out alive (directly from the BP reactor) or if the ozone would kill them and break them down into smaller organic molecules that are more easily and readily skimmed out. The same could be said in reverse. Ozone could break down the bacteria to less "skimmable" components. I don't know that the answer will ever be known to that without very significant testing and experimentation.

It would also be intesting to know what percentage of bacteria that enter the system would die anyway even if they didn't enter the ozone injection area. At the very least, like DJ said, it could prevent a significant bacterial bloom that would very likely drive down o2 and pH.

I still think using ozone (when used properly and with consideration to your intent with the bacterial proliferation your creating) in conjuntion with any carbon source dosing can be a very helpful tool in decreasing nutrient levels and preventing common complications from the carbon dosing.

Jeremy

 

[DJREEF]

It's my understanding that the use of the biopellets as opposed to carbon source dosing to the entire system, is that the bacterial proliferation can be at a specific location and there will be limited affect on bacterial growth throughout the rest of the system (particularly the corals sybiotic bacteria).

It sounds as if the manufacturers intent with the use of the BP's is to direct the effluent from the reactor towards the skimmer intake so the bacteria can be immediately skimmed out. This negates your indication of significant proliferation of bacteria throughout the entire system. It's my understanding that that's not the intention with the use of the BP's. The carbon source will not be a limiting nutrient with the use of BP's (if enough are used), therefore the bacterial proliferation on the surface of the BP's can continue to increase in that location as opposed to anywhere else in the tank (at least ideally). The use of ozone and it's conicidental killing of bacteria in the water column is moot point since the idea of using the BP's is to create the bacterial proliferation inside the BP reactor then skim them out as soon as they leave the reactor.

Jeremy

The theory is that. The reality is quite different. Just the fact that systemic bacterial blooms take place at all indicates otherwise. There are plenty of pix of systems that clearly show that the bacteria are making it either through the skimmer or around it. I think the bigger question is how useful are these bacteria as a food source, if at all. I'm thinking that a good many assumptions are being made where these products are concerned.

DJ

 

[DJREEF]

If the BP reactor effluent is past the ozone reactor intake then the ozone would have little effect on the bacterioplankton entering the display until it circled the loop (tank to sump) a few times and eventually gets into the ozone reactor. The o3 molecule is so unstable it only remains as o3 for a very short time and would be unlikely to cause any significant bacterial death inside the display unless you were directing the outlet into the display and not implementing an o3 diffusing zone with GAC. If o3 went into the display in any significant amount it would cause substantial harm to the fish and other animals and at that point the bacterial death would be of little concern.

Jeremy

Exactly.

DJ

 

[Stuart60611]

It's also not known if the bacteria are more easily skimmed out alive (directly from the BP reactor) or if the ozone would kill them and break them down into smaller organic molecules that are more easily and readily skimmed out.

My concern would be in this circumstance that although the bacteria may or may not be easier to skim out when killed and broken down into smaller organic molecules by either ozone or UV, once killed and broken down in this manner would not the bacteria then release all of the nitrate and phosphate it consumed back into the system? To me, those bacteria killed and broken down in this fashion would be very counter-productive to the goal of removing nitrate and phosphate.

 

[DJREEF]

My concern would be in this circumstance that although the bacteria may or may not be easier to skim out when killed and broken down into smaller organic molecules by either ozone or UV, once killed and broken down in this manner would not the bacteria then release all of the nitrate and phosphate it consumed back into the system? To me, those bacteria killed and broken down in this fashion would be very counter-productive to the goal of removing nitrate and phosphate.

I certainly know that my skimmer is going ape-doodoo as a result of the liveliness of said bacteria. I couldn't imagine it working any harder with bacterial corpses, but then I don't have the means to check that theory. Why should I, everything is working well the way it is.

DJ